Edit2: But that is apparently to keep the temperature relatively constant: "As satellites orbit, one side is exposed to the direct radiation of the sun while the opposite side is completely dark and exposed to the deep cold of outer space. This causes severe discrepancies in the temperature (and thus reliability and accuracy) of the transponders."

Edit3 and what I should have said all along: It's not transferring to anything. it's radiating. Thus the term.

You need to wikipedia some thermodynamics. Heat energy cannot be dissipated into nothing. It requires matter to absorb the energy. In the relative vacuum of space, their is not enough matter for radiant cooling in conventional terms to be efficient. I just asked my physicist ladyfriend, and she said my theory sounds correct. Good enough for me to stand behind it...she knows a hell of a low more about thermodynamics than I do.

Myrkul is almost never right about anything, so I hate to agree with him, but surprisingly, he's right this time. I'm a physicist by training. Radiation can be emitted by an object in a vacuum without a problem (it's how the Sun emits heat that reaches us, even though the intervening space is almost perfectly a vacuum). Further, it's the dominant way that hot objects lose heat, since the heat emitted via radiation scales as (temperature)^4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_law). You don't notice it while sitting in your room because all the heat you're losing through radiation is being replaced by all the other objects in the room radiating back at you; in space, you'd notice it quickly.

The sun is ejecting matter and consuming itself to project that heat through the intervening vacuum. We are talking about infrared band energy here, such as a graphics card would produce. It is not emitting energy as alpha or beta or gamma particles, and it is not emitting energy as photons. So how is it comparable to the sun? We are talking about hundreds of orders of magnitude difference here.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law that you refer to only applies to black body (perfect) radiators, which do not exist. Furthermore, it reinforces my claim that the energy will not be transferred unless there is matter for it to transfer to. It is essentially irrelevant in this context.

It is like the difference between air and liquid cooling. Liquid is more dense than air, and thus, it can absorb more heat faster. This is why 80F in the air is comfortable, whereas 80F in the water will give you hypothermia eventually. Now imagine that air is the liquid, and the vacuum of space is the air cooling...same concept applies: the more dense material is much more efficient at absorbing that radiant heat...hence a cooling fan does not work in space, but an active cooling system like a heat pipe does.

It is like the difference between air and liquid cooling. Liquid is more dense than air, and thus, it can absorb more heat faster. This is why 80F in the air is comfortable, whereas 80F in the water will give you hypothermia eventually. Now imagine that air is the liquid, and the vacuum of space is the air cooling...same concept applies: the more dense material is much more efficient at absorbing that radiant heat...hence a cooling fan does not work in space, but an active cooling system like a heat pipe does.

No one ever argued that convection wasn't more efficient than radiation.

What we said is: It's fucking cold in space. With nothing radiating back, the item in question will lose heat rather rapidly.

The sun is ejecting matter and consuming itself to project that heat through the intervening vacuum. We are talking about infrared band energy here, such as a graphics card would produce. It is not emitting energy as alpha or beta or gamma particles, and it is not emitting energy as photons. So how is it comparable to the sun? We are talking about hundreds of orders of magnitude difference here.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law that you refer to only applies to black body (perfect) radiators, which do not exist. Furthermore, it reinforces my claim that the energy will not be transferred unless there is matter for it to transfer to. It is essentially irrelevant in this context.

It is like the difference between air and liquid cooling. Liquid is more dense than air, and thus, it can absorb more heat faster. This is why 80F in the air is comfortable, whereas 80F in the water will give you hypothermia eventually. Now imagine that air is the liquid, and the vacuum of space is the air cooling...same concept applies: the more dense material is much more efficient at absorbing that radiant heat...hence a cooling fan does not work in space, but an active cooling system like a heat pipe does.

Radiation is perfectly capable of travelling through vacuum without any intervening matter. In the simplest conception, you can think of the energy being stored in the electromagnetic field, which doesn't need matter to be there (there's even an equation for the energy density in the field, u = epsilon_0/2 E^2 + 1/2\mu_0 B^2). The Sun is ejecting a little bit of matter (which you see as solar wind), but the overwhelming amount of energy hitting Earth is in the form of radiation (those photons that you seem to think aren't being emitted and aren't heating and illuminating your day). To be precise, about 1000 W per m^2 of solar radiation hits the Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight). Blackbody radiation is an idealization, just like something like an ideal gas, but it's not too far off from the reality (again, see the figure here that compares the blackbody radiation spectrum to the actual solar spectrum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight).

The Wikipedia articles on "Radiation" and "Electromagnetic Radiation" are very readable. I'd encourage you to read them.

(those photons that you seem to think aren't being emitted and aren't heating and illuminating your day).

I was talking about this theoretical graphics card in space...not the sun. That much I am certain of.

I am saying that any piece of complex electronic equipment, if it is to function in space, needs an active cooling (and heating) solution. A fan 'blowing' on a GPU's heatsink in space would be completely ineffective and would not serve to cool the heatsink in any significant manner. You don't use space to cool things off. It just doesn't work.

If space is 'so fucking cold' that everything just cools off instantly, then why link to an article about heat pipes in satellites?

If space is 'so fucking cold' that everything just cools off instantly, then why link to an article about heat pipes in satellites?

Because I discovered that article in seeking the correct answer. in reading that article, I found the quote. Which, I might add, you still haven't addressed. I was admitting I might be wrong. In doing so, I found out that Yes, I was in fact right all along. Please, read about thermal radiation.

Back on the original topic, I've got something small but hopefully meaningful to add: There are teenagers graduating high school today who have been taught more advanced science than I learned in college. In the next generation or two, there will probably be sixth graders with a more thorough and correct understanding of the atom than my college chem professor - not because they're brilliant but just because they're lucky to be educated in a time when we understand more.

Some day we will discover something truly devastating and there will be no way to hide it. In the past governments controlled nuclear technology by controlling the knowledge: most folks just didn't have the skills or technology to build something like this. Today they control the technology by controlling the fuel: weapons-grade plutonium is pretty damn hard to get your hands on (at least for the average Joe). Some day we'll move past fission and on to fusion. Unlike fission, fusion doesn't require special unstable heavy versions of already-rare elements - you can do it with that most abundant of all elements, hydrogen. At first, the knowledge will be the barrier; few will know how to kickstart a fusion reaction, it will be the realm of the scientific elite and the governments who can afford to pay them. We will make both generators and bombs, because that's what we humans do with new tech. It won't be long, though, before the knowledge is no barrier - information has a way of slipping free given enough time - and what is to stop people from destroying each other then?

It's an arms race of sorts, except the reward isn't national pride or oil - the reward is the continued survival of our species. If science continues unhindered in its current direction, we will some day have a technology that can utterly destroy our entire planet at low cost and high availability. We have to be ready to deal with that knowledge when it comes; not as individuals or nations but as an entire species - we must prepare for a world where every 12 year old can kill everything that lives. Hopefully we're up to the task.

If space is 'so fucking cold' that everything just cools off instantly, then why link to an article about heat pipes in satellites?

Because I discovered that article in seeking the correct answer. in reading that article, I found the quote. Which, I might add, you still haven't addressed. I was admitting I might be wrong. In doing so, I found out that Yes, I was in fact right all along. Please, read about thermal radiation.

"As satellites orbit, one side is exposed to the direct radiation of the sun while the opposite side is completely dark and exposed to the deep cold of outer space. This causes severe discrepancies in the temperature (and thus reliability and accuracy) of the transponders."

The EM energy of the sun heats the satellite. The side that doesn't get hit with the Sun's EM radiation is remains cold.

By your logic, the heat of the side being struck by the suns radiation should cool instantly. The external temperature of the device is exactly the same on both sides. The only difference is the influx of EM radiation. So why doesn't this ultra-cold space wick away all the heat like it would on earth? Matter...the lack of it to be specific.

I love the way that a discussion about individuals building WMDs has morphed into a discussion about cooling GPU cards in outer space!

Apropos the WMDs, there's an interesting short story about an atheist talking to god, where god discusses the evolution of intelligent civilizations. God says that civilizations inevitably go through a number of phases (for example the discovery of flight), and the most dangerous phase is the one where any one individual has the ability to kill off the whole civilization.

I think it's safer for WMDs to be controlled by individuals than by governments, because individuals will put more effort into defending against WMDs than into aggressing with WMDs. Governments tend to have psychopathic behaviours which make them not well-suited to be the ones with their "finger on the button".

It was over five years ago when I read the short story that contained the notion of individuals being able to destroy their entire civilization. I looked for it again, and found the relevant paragraph, but it wasn't quite as I had remembered it. Here's this part of the story:

Quote

"If you think the dangers of genetic warfare are serious, imagine discovering an algorithm, accessible to any intelligent individual, which, if abused, will eliminate your species instantly. If your progress continues as is, then you can expect to discover that particular self-destruct mechanism in less than a thousand years. Your species needs to grow up considerably before you can afford to make that discovery."

An algorithm? Our species needs to grow up considerably before we can afford to make the discovery? Bitcoin? Too late to stop that algorithm being discovered!

PS: Yikes! While I was composing this post, enmaku posted similar ideas but from a non-fiction perspective...

"As satellites orbit, one side is exposed to the direct radiation of the sun while the opposite side is completely dark and exposed to the deep cold of outer space. This causes severe discrepancies in the temperature (and thus reliability and accuracy) of the transponders."

The EM energy of the sun heats the satellite. The side that doesn't get hit with the Sun's EM radiation is remains cold.

By your logic, the heat of the side being struck by the suns radiation should cool instantly. The external temperature of the device is exactly the same on both sides. The only difference is the influx of EM radiation. So why doesn't this ultra-cold space wick away all the heat like it would on earth? Matter...the lack of it to be specific.

No, please, do keep going. I love watching people make fools of themselves.

1. Never said instant. I said 'rather quickly'2. and when the satellite rotates, so now the 'cold' side is facing the sun, what happens to the heat that is stored in the metal?

@RandyFolds Inferred is electromagnetic radiation similar to light. It is hence made up of photons.

If you can irradiate heat through a vacuum then the Earth would be bloody hot, receiving all that heat over the years but never giving any away through the vacuum of space.

Conduction is done through both particle collision and photons, I'm guessing?

The Earth is bloody hot. Granted, much of that is the greenhouse effect based on the presence of an atmosphere. If there were no atmosphere, the side facing the sun would be ridiculously hot and the side facing away ridiculously cold...a 2nd grader can tell you that. That is essentially why a 15 billion dollar rover is sitting in a block of ice on mars right now...

"Light" is an arbitrary section of the EM spectra based on human's visual range. All energy is EM energy.

To be clear, the scale matters here. When talking about suns and planets, there is a lot of matter in the 'vacuum' of space. On a more human scale, it is pretty empty.

"As satellites orbit, one side is exposed to the direct radiation of the sun while the opposite side is completely dark and exposed to the deep cold of outer space. This causes severe discrepancies in the temperature (and thus reliability and accuracy) of the transponders."

The EM energy of the sun heats the satellite. The side that doesn't get hit with the Sun's EM radiation is remains cold.

By your logic, the heat of the side being struck by the suns radiation should cool instantly. The external temperature of the device is exactly the same on both sides. The only difference is the influx of EM radiation. So why doesn't this ultra-cold space wick away all the heat like it would on earth? Matter...the lack of it to be specific.

No, please, do keep going. I love watching people make fools of themselves.

1. Never said instant. I said 'rather quickly'2. and when the satellite rotates, so now the 'cold' side is facing the sun, what happens to the heat that is stored in the metal?

That's right, it radiates away.

No, it is distributed over the device by the 'Heat Pipe' that you linked to. Operating temperature isn't the issue, consistency of temperature is. Besides, satellites aren't hurtling though space in a tumble. They maintain their alignment with the earth more or less.

No, it is distributed over the device by the 'Heat Pipe' that you linked to. Operating temperature isn't the issue, consistency of temperature is. Besides, satellites aren't hurtling though space in a tumble. They maintain their alignment with the earth more or less.

You have got to be kidding me. The heat pipe is to regulate the heat distribution to prevent the dark side from getting too cold. (and the hot side from getting too hot) Absent that heat pipe, the temperature differential would stress and destroy the satellite in fairly short order. And what, exactly, does their alignment with the earth have to do with their alignment to the sun? I never even implied that it tumbled. I said 'rotate'.

No, it is distributed over the device by the 'Heat Pipe' that you linked to. Operating temperature isn't the issue, consistency of temperature is. Besides, satellites aren't hurtling though space in a tumble. They maintain their alignment with the earth more or less.

You have got to be kidding me. The heat pipe is to regulate the heat distribution to prevent the dark side from getting too cold. (and the hot side from getting too hot) Absent that heat pipe, the temperature differential would stress and destroy the satellite in fairly short order. And what, exactly, does their alignment with the earth have to do with their alignment to the sun? I never even implied that it tumbled. I said 'rotate'.

How did we get from GPU to satellite? We are talking about mining bitcoin in space, for christ's sake. You could at least try and stay on topic.

Basically, anything to derail this ridiculous thread. No, everyone should not have a nuke..especially when they've been drinking.

No, it is distributed over the device by the 'Heat Pipe' that you linked to. Operating temperature isn't the issue, consistency of temperature is. Besides, satellites aren't hurtling though space in a tumble. They maintain their alignment with the earth more or less.

You have got to be kidding me. The heat pipe is to regulate the heat distribution to prevent the dark side from getting too cold. (and the hot side from getting too hot) Absent that heat pipe, the temperature differential would stress and destroy the satellite in fairly short order. And what, exactly, does their alignment with the earth have to do with their alignment to the sun? I never even implied that it tumbled. I said 'rotate'.

How did we get from GPU to satellite? We are talking about mining bitcoin in space, for christ's sake. You could at least try and stay on topic.

Basically, anything to derail this ridiculous thread. No, everyone should not have a nuke..especially when they've been drinking.

Figured you were trolling. Nobody could be that stupid and still manage to type coherently.

Since you've finally expressed an on-topic opinion, care to back it up?

If the earth relied on heat transfer through vibrating particle collisions only, we'd all be melting. In fact when particles in space hit earth, they heat up through friction and don't cool the earth down.

If the earth relied on heat transfer through vibrating particle collisions only, we'd all be melting. In fact when particles in space hit earth, they heat up through friction and don't cool the earth down.

Nukes... nukes release a lot of radiation, don't they?

What is a photon Matthew? What's it made out of? Hit wikipedia for some particle-wave duality. I do not deny that infrared is electromagnetic radiation, but I cannot be certain if it is a photon, nor can you.

If we didn't have an atmosphere we'd all be melting. And then freezing. And then melting. Oh the wonders if an insulating layer of atmosphere.

myrkul: statistics back me up. they say that half of the world is below average intelligence, which is a pretty fucking low bar as it is. retards shouldn't have nukes, it's as simple as that.